Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian (EDH)
BY
P ROF . D R . A LFRÉD T ÓTH
Mikes International
The Hague, Holland
2007
'Stichting MIKES INTERNATIONAL' alapítvány, Hága, Hollandia.
Számlaszám: Postbank rek.nr. 7528240
Cégbejegyzés: Stichtingenregister: S 41158447 Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken Den Haag Terjesztés
A könyv a következő Internet-címről tölthető le: http://www.federatio.org/mikes_bibl.html Aki az email-levelezési listánkon kíván szerepelni, a következő címen iratkozhat fel:
mikes_int-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
A kiadó nem rendelkezik anyagi forrásokkal. Többek áldozatos munkájából és adományaiból tartja fenn magát.
Adományokat szívesen fogadunk.
Cím
A szerkesztőség, illetve a kiadó elérhető a következő címeken:
Email: mikes_int@federatio.org
Levelezési cím: P.O. Box 10249, 2501 HE, Den Haag, Hollandia
_____________________________________
Publisher
Foundation 'Stichting MIKES INTERNATIONAL', established in The Hague, Holland.
Account: Postbank rek.nr. 7528240
Registered: Stichtingenregister: S 41158447 Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken Den Haag Distribution
The book can be downloaded from the following Internet-address: http://www.federatio.org/mikes_bibl.html If you wish to subscribe to the email mailing list, you can do it by sending an email to the following address:
mikes_int-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
The publisher has no financial sources. It is supported by many in the form of voluntary work and gifts. We kindly appreciate your gifts.
Address
The Editors and the Publisher can be contacted at the following addresses:
Email: mikes_int@federatio.org
Postal address: P.O. Box 10249, 2501 HE, Den Haag, Holland
_____________________________________
ISSN 1570-0070 ISBN-13: 978-90-8501-103-3 NUR 616
© Mikes International 2001-2007, Alfréd Tóth 2007, All Rights Reserved
P UBLISHER ’ S PREFACE
Mikes International is pleased to publish this Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian electronically written by Professor Alfréd Tóth, thus making it available to everyone in the world. This is the first edition of the author’s life-work, on which he worked 17 years.
The Hague (Holland), January 22, 2007
MIKES INTERNATIONAL
CONTENTS
Publisher’s preface ... III
1. Foreword ...1
2. Introduction into Sumerian-Hungarian research...4
3. Is there a Finno-Ugric or Uralic language family?...14
4. Comparing Hungarian etymologies from standard etymological dictionaries ...35
5. Sumerian and Hungarian ...40
6. Hungarian and the other Finno-Ugric languages...157
7. Caucasian and Hungarian...223
8. Bantu and Hungarian...238
9. Etruscan and Hungarian ...254
10. Tibeto-Burman and Hungarian ...296
11. Munda languages and Hungarian ...336
12. Dravidian languages and Hungarian ...390
13. Chinese and Hungarian...473
14. Japanese and Hungarian ...567
15. Turkish and Hungarian ...602
16. Austronesian and Hungarian ...688
17. Mayan languages and Hungarian...713
18. Conclusions...745
19. Index of the Hungarian and other words...748
20. Index of the Sumerian words ...773
About the author...788
1. Foreword
This “Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian” – for which I propose the abbreviation “EDH” – is based on the assumption that the Hungarian (Magyar) language is the direct successor of Sumerian.
With this assumption – for which the present author is convinced that there is enough evidence (cf. Chapters 2 and 3) -, EDH strongly competes with and contradicts the traditional Hungarian etymological dictionaries, that are based on the assumption that Hungarian belongs to the Finno-Ugric (FU) languages:
● Budenz, József
Magyar-ugor összehasonlító szótár Budapest 1873-1881
New impression with an introduction by Gyula Décsy under the title:
A Comparative Dictionary of the Finno-Ugric Elements in the Hungarian Vocabulary Bloomington, IN 1966
● Szarvas, Gábor
Magyar nyelvtörténeti szótár a legrégibb nyelvemlékről a nyelvújításig (3 vols.) Budapest 1890-1893
● Gombocz, Zoltán/Melich, János Magyar etymológiai szótár (incomplete) Budapest 1914-1930.
● Bárczi, Géza
Magyar szófejtő szótár Budapest 1941
New impression Budapest 1994
● Benkő, Loránd et al.
A magyar nyelv történeti-etimológiai szótára (4 vols.) Budapest 1967-1984
● Lakó, György et al.
A magyar szókészlet finnugor elemei etimológiai szótára (3 vols.) Budapest 1968-1978
● Benkó, Loránd et al.
Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen (3 vols.) Budapest 1993-1997
Obviously, each 10 or 20 years, there was a need for a new (and expensive) multi-volumes etymological
Furthermore, if one compares the “crucial words” – alleged borrowings from Slavonic or Turkic and words of “unknown” or “doubtful origin” -, one will find, as a rule, in each of the fore-mentioned dictionaries quite different etymologies (cf. Chapter 4).
All these dictionaries are ordered alphabetically according to the Hungarian lemma and none of these books are written in English. EDH, however, differs in two ways from the already published etymological dictionaries of Hungarian: Firstly, it is written in English that is more widespread than Hungarian or German. Secondly, EDH is also ordered alphabetically according to the Hungarian lemma, but separately for each language or language family: Sumerian and Hungarian (Chapter 5), Hungarian and the other Finno-Ugric languages (Chapter 6), Caucasian and Hungarian (Chapter 7), Bantu and Hungarian (Chapter 8), Etruscan and Hungarian (Chapter 9), Tibeto-Burman and Hungarian (Chapter 10), Munda languages (Chapter 11), Dravidian languages and Hungarian (Chapter 12), Chinese and Hungarian (Chapter 13), Japanese and Hungarian (Chapter 14), Turkish and Hungarian (Chapter 15), Austronesian and Hungarian (16), Mayan Languages and Hungarian (Chapter 17).
A chapter about conclusions (Chapter 18) and two indices (Chapters 19 and 20) conclude EDH.
The fundament of all comparisons between Hungarian and Sumerian is the complete list, given in Chapter 5, from Colman-Gabriel Gostony’s “Dictionnarie d’étymologie sumérienne” (Paris 1975), a milestone for Sumerian-Hungarian research. This means: We do not take as a basis a regular Hungarian dictionary and compare all or some of its words with the words in a dictionary of another language, disregarding sound-laws and operating on kling-klang-etymologies. We set as only fact the hypothesis, that the 1042 etymologies in Gostony (1975) are correct, since they have never been disproved. In other words: We reduce the many then-thousands of Hungarian words of the following three best dictionaries:
● Czuczor, Gergely/Fogarasi, János A magyar nyelv szótára (6 vols) Pest 1862-1874
Available on CD Rom from Arcanum Adabázis Kft., Budapest (arcadat@axelero.hu)
● Ballagi, Mór
A magyar nyelv teljes szótára (2 vols. in 1) Budapest 1873
New impression Budapest 1998
● Halász, Előd/Földes, Csaba/Uzony, Pál
Magyar-német nagyszótár – Ungarisch-deutsches Grosswörterbuch Budapest 1998
to a relative small common Sumerian-Hungarian basis of 1042 entries and compare this list with the already mentioned languages: A word from another languages enters the list only, if it corresponds with one of the 1042 words and no other Hungarian word than one of these 1042 will be compared to another language, even if they are plenty of examples to be found in the extremely rich Sumerian- Hungarian literature (cf. Chapter 2). The only exception is Etruscan (cf. Chapter 9), being a corpus-language with an extremely restricted vocabulary. Of course, comparing three instead of two
languages also reduces massively the chance of mistaken etymologies. For the sound rules I refer to Gostony (1975) concerning the Sumerian-Hungarian part and to the dictionaries of the other languages, from which we have taken our data, for the other parts, but I do not repeat the sound-rules here - neither do the FU dictionaries. Yet, almost all of the works used in EDH can be found in a big university library in America and in Europa or borrowed via interloan.
All the maps that are used in this book are copyrighted by Wikipedia.
The author hopes that EDH will be able to establish itself as a reference work for all the peoples who have always adhered to the Sumerian-Hungarian theory or do not believe anymore in FU and Uralic linguistics. If EDH will cause some adherents of FU/Uralic linguistics to convert to Sumerian- Hungarian linguistics, then it has reached more than its author ever could hope.
Finally, I give EDH two sad, but true quotations by two of the greatest Sumerian-Hungarian researchers on its way:
Spread the word and be not surprised if you are assailed, perhaps even by people who call themselves Hungarians.
(Ida Bobula, Budapest 1900 – Gaffney, SC, USA, 1981)
Mert nem az az igaz, ami igaz, hanem amit a világ igaznak – tart.
(Because not that is true, what is true, but what the world – holds for true.) (Viktor Padány, Vatta (Borsod) 1906 – Melbourne, Australia 1963)
Tucson, AZ, USA, 29.10.2006 Alfréd Tóth
2. Introduction into
Sumerian-Hungarian research
1. Preliminary remarks
Sumerian-Hungarian research has at least four drawbacks: First, there is – unlike in Finno-Ugristics and Uralistics - no complete bibliography of Sumerian-Hungarian studies, although the literature is enormous. Second, because during the communist era Sumerian-Hungarian research was forbidden in Hungary, many publications had to appear abroad in more or less ephemeral journals and obscure publishing houses. Third, the majority of these publications – again unlike FU- and Uralistic studies - are written in Hungarian, so they are not understandable for most non-Hungarians. Fourth, there are not only pearls amongst the Sumerian-Hungarian studies. Especially in linguistics, many works have been written by non-linguists, even by non-academics. Therefore, this introduction has also the purpose of leading the beginner to the scientifically valuable publications.
2. History of Sumerian-Hungarian research
The standard work that gives an overview of the beginnings of Sumerian-Hungarian research is:
● Érdy, Miklós
The Sumerian, Ural-Altaic, Magyar Relationship: A History of Research A sumír, ural-altaji, magyar rokonság története
Part I : The 19th Century I. Rész: A 19. század New York 1974
This work has the advantage, that it is bilingual (Hungarian and English), but the disadvantage, that Part II (concerning the 20th century) never appeared. A relatively short, but reliable “substitute” for Part II with a long bibliography is the following article:
● Dombi, Charles (Károly)
The controversy on the origins and early history of the Hungarians In: www.hunmgyar.org/tor/controve.htm
Here we learn the names of the decipherers of Sumerian who also connected it immediately to the
“Turanian” languages (the former name of the “Ural-Altaic” family), especially Hungarian: Edward Hincks (1792-1866), François Lenormant (1837-1883), Jules Oppert (1825-1905) and Henry C.
Rawlinson (1792-1866). The decipherment of the Cuneiform writing, in which the two basic languages of ancient Mesopotamia, Sumerian and Akkadian, were written between ca. 3000 – 400 B.C., was started by Georg Friedrich Grotefend as early as in 1802, but only in 1850, Rawlinson finished it.
Therefore, before 1850, there is also no Sumerian-Hungarian research. But since (as we will see in chapter 3), there are many Akkadian loanwords in Sumerian, one should never forget the following work whose aim was to prove that Hungarian is related to the Semitic languages:
● Kiss, Bálint
Magyar régiségek (Hungarian Antiquities) Pest 1839
Hence, it is true, that the Finno-Ugric theory, initiated by János Sajnovics (1770) and Sámuel Gyarmathi (1799) is older and competed with the still older theory of the Turkish origin of Hungarian, but it is mistaken to speak about the so-called “second Hungarian-Turkish war” (“ a második Magyar-Török háború”) after 1850. The connections established between the newly detected Sumerian and the Hungarian language that were most strongly propagated by two non-Hungarians, the French archeologist Lenormant and the German linguist Fritz Hommel (1854-1936), both university professors, spread quickly all over the world and found their entrance f. ex. also in some editions of the
“Encyclopaedia Britannica” between 1860 and 1880.
But things changed: Already during the so-called Bach-era 1848-1859, but at last since the Hungarian- Austrian “Ausgleich” in 1867, the Habsburgs ordered Austrian and German professors for the chairs in linguistics and history to Budapest. One of them was the German Josef Budenz who published on behalf of the Viennese court between 1873 and 1881 his “Magyar-ugor összehasonlító szótár”
(“Comparative Hungarian-Ugric Dictionary”), where the long forgotten hypothesis of Sajnovics and Gyarmathi was freshened up again. It is obvious, what the Habsburgs wanted to show: The Hungarians, who were not more than slaves in the eyes of the Habsburgs, were not allowed to trace their origins back to the Sumerians, the first high culture that existed on earth. Rather, a connection with the Lapps, the Voguls and the Ostyaks, who lived in the 19th century still in the stone-Age, was established. Political propaganda and banishment of the adherents of the Sumerian-Hungarian theory helped a lot. After the downfall of the Austrian-Hungarian double-monarchy in 1918, the communists took over Hungary already in 1919 under the leadership of Béla Kún, then extensively in 1945 and from 1956-1989, so that the communists directly continued the Anti-Sumerian-Hungarian campaign started by their enemies, the Habsburgs, since in the end, both the Habsburgs and the communists agreed in their opinion that the Hungarians are subhuman creatures.
Nowadays, Finno-Ugristics is fully established, all Sumerian-Hungarian research is considered to be
“unscientific”, representatives of this theory are blacklisted, publishing in Hungary is possible, but still difficult, because the communists are still sitting on key positions in all sectors of education (and elsewhere). Yet, there is hope, since the chairs of the FU representatives started to shake already a couple of years ago. The Tartu school of Uralistics has given up since a long time the concept of the Uralic tree-model and thus the genetic relationship of the Uralic languages:
● Künnap, Ago
Breakthrough in Present-Day Uralistics Tartu 1998
Angela Marcantonio has proven, that there is no FU language family either:
● Marcantonio, Angela
The Uralic language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics Oxford 2002
László Marácz, like the two fore-mentioned scholars a university professor, has shown both in Hungarian and in English, that in reality not the Sumerian-Hungarian, but the FU theory is unscientific:
● Marácz, László
A finnugor elmélet tarthatatlansága nyelvészeti szempontból (Original of the following English translation)
In: www.kitalaltkozepkor.hu/maracz_finnugor.html
● Marácz, László
The untenability of the Finno-Ugrian theory from a linguistic point of view In: www.acronet.net/~magyar/english/1997-3/JRNL97B.htm
Marácz has shown, that the FU theory is circular and thus unscientific: One proves, what one already presupposes to have been proven. E.g. one compares only languages of the Finno-Ugric family in order to “prove” that these languages belong to the Finno-Ugric family. Otherwise, no Finno-Ugrist could refuse comparisons of Hungarian with Sumerian, Turkish, Japanese, etc. When the mathematician Bertrand Russell proved Gottlob Frege in the end of the 19th century, that in his logic there is circularity – the so-called Russell-paradox of a set of sets that either contains or does not contain itself -, then this result had devastating consequences for mathematics, since mathematics was based since Cantor on logic. Russell’s paradox thus did not only split set theory in two different set theories, but changed the very fundament of mathematics (cf. e.g. the Bourbaki School). But nothing like that happened until now in Finno-Ugristics. Even if circularity can be shown to a kindergarten child – for example with Epimenides’ paradox: “I am lying” -, the vast majority of Finno-Ugrists do not show any understanding.
Marácz showed also a real alternative to comparative historical reconstruction: the so-called “word- bushes” or “clusters”: One puts together words with identical or similar form and content and orders them into bushes. This pure synchronic procedure is non-circular, because in an agglutinative language like Hungarian there are no such phenomena like ablaut that involve previous diachronic knowledge in synchronic analysis. One should not forget, either, that the method of historical reconstruction was adopted from the Indo-European languages and successfully applied to the Semitic languages - because both of them have ablaut, but it has not proven to be valuable for any other language family. Moreover, in isolating languages like Chinese and the almost whole range of Austronesian languages between Madagascar in the West and Easter Island in the East, one has no other possibility to decide, if two or more words are genetically related or not, since in these languages we have to deal with monosyllabic roots (and not to speak about the total absence of older texts in most of the latter languages). Here, too, Marácz’s method applies: If a certain word is a member of a word-bush, then all the words, that belong to this bush are genetically related to one another, but if it stays alone, then it must be a borrowing. These bushes can be taken easily from the huge Hungarian dictionary by Czuczor and Fogarasi:
● Czuczor, Gergely/Fogarasi, János
A magyar nyelv szótára (The Dicitonary of the Hungarian Language). 6 vols.
Pest 1862-74
Available since 2003 on CD at Arcanum Adatbázis Budapest
3. How Hungarian history looks like from the Sumerian-Hungarian point of view
The best and most exhaustive work on general Hungarian history (including linguistics, too) is:
● Götz, László
Keleten kél a nap (The Sun Rises in the East). 2 vols.
Budapest 1994
Original typewriter copy in 4 vols.: Altötting and Vienna 1981-84
An extremely well written and compact introduction into all aspects of Sumerian-Hungarian history (including linguistics, folklore and anthropology) gives:
● Bobula, Ida
Origin of the Hungarian Nation Gainesville, FL 1966
This little book, that has only 68 pages (and for which one has to pay astronomical prices in antique book stores) is an abridged version of one of the three of the author’s more extensive PhD Dissertations:
● Bobula, Ida
Sumerian Affiliations Washington, D.C. 1951,
but unfortunately, this book has never been printed but only distributed in photocopies. (The Louis Szathmáry collection of the University of Chicago, who has the best collection of Sumerian-Hungarian studies throughout the US, has a copy, that can be borrowed.) But this book was revised and translated in Spanish:
● Bobula, Ida
Herencia de Sumeria Mexico City 1967
and gives also many valuable maps about the early wanderings of the Sumerians into the Carpathian basin.
Amongst the other books of the same author, the following posthumous collection of minor writings is important:
● Bobula, Ida
A sumer-magyar rokonság (The Sumerian-Hungarian Relationship) Buenos Aires 1982.
Of special value is the following truthfully monumental work:
● Padányi, Viktor Dentumagyaria
Buenos Aires 1963, new impressions Veszprém 1989, Budapest 2000 and others
The best overview of Hungarian’s whole history from the beginnings to our time in a very broad scientific and political context gives
● Marácz, László
Hungarian Revival. Political Reflexions on Central Europe
Nieuwegein (Netherlands) 1996; The Hague (Netherlands) 2007, Mikes International (http://www.federatio.org/mikes_bibl.html)
Besides the already cited linguistic works of the same author, the only reliable linguistic studies are:
● Csőke, Sándor
Szumir-magyar egyeztető szótár (Sumerian-Hungarian Comparative Dictionary) Buenos Aires s.a.
● Csőke, Sándor
A sumér ősnyelvről a magyar élőnyelvig (From the Sumerian Primeval Languages to the Hungarian Living Language)
New York 1969
● Csőke, Sándor
Sumér-magyar összehasonlító nyelvtan (Sumerian-Hungarian Comparative Grammar) Buenos Aires 1972
● Csőke, Sándor
Sumér-finn-mongol-török összehasonlító nyelvtan. 2 vols. (Sumerian-Finnic-Mongolian- Turkish Comparative Grammar)
Buenos Aires 1974
● Csőke, Sándor
Három tanulmány (Three Studies)
1. Finnugor nyelvek nincsenek (There are no finno-Ugric languages)
2. As ószláv nyelv sumér-urálaltáji elemei (The Sumerian-Ural-Altaic elements of the primeval Slavonic language)
3. A magyar nyelv állítólagos szláv jövevényszavai (The alleged Slavonic loanwords of the Hungarian language)
Especially interesting for place and proper names are the two following works:
● Bobula, Ida
Kétezer magyar név sumir eredete (Ten thousand Hungarian names of Sumerian Origin) Montreal 1970
● Novotny, Elemér
A sumer és a magyar alapszókincs egyezése (Comparison of the Sumerian and the Hungarian basic vocabularies)
Budapest 1985
(A privately bound big collection of photocopied typewritten essays that exist only in 1 copy in the US: in the University of Chicago Library under the calling number PH2074.N686 1985.)
To use only with care are all works by Jós Ferenc Badiny (also known as Francisco Badiny Jos and Francisco Jos Badiny). The best and only one written in a sort of English is:
● Badiny, Francisco Jos
The Sumerian Wonder. With the collaboration of M. Brady, M. von Haynal, G. Enderlin and Dr. E. Novotny
Buenos Aires 1974
Characteristic of all of the many books and articles by Badiny is, that he presupposes a continuity between Sumerian and Hungarian, i.e. according to him and his followers, Sumerian never died out, and today’s Hungarian is thus nothing but a late form of Sumerian.
In the following, we will present an outline of the main points of Sumerian-Hungarian history from the following article by Charles Dombi. (All quotations from Dombi, whose article is not paginated, are marked; what is not marked, is by me, especially the passage about the Transilvanian origin of the Sumerians: Dombi assumes that the Sumerians are autochthonous in Mesopotamia and wandered from there to Transilvania):
● Dombi, Charles (Károly)
Hungarian historical chronology
In: www.hunmagyar.org/tor/mythist.htm
The Hungarians trace their origin back to Nimrod, who lives in the Hungarian mythology as Mén- Marót (pseudo-etymologically influenced by Hung. mén “stallion”). He as his wife Eneth had two sons, Magor and Hunor, who became the forefathers of the Magyars (Hungarians) and the Huns. The standard works for Hungarian mythology are:
● Kandra, Kabos
Magyar mythologia (Hungarian mythology) Eger 1897, new impression San Francisco 1978
● Ipoly, Arnold
Magyar mythologia. 2 vols. (Hungarian mythology) Pest 1854, 2nd edition Budapest 1929
“Byzantine sources mention that the Magyars were also known as the Sabirs who originated from Northern Mesopotamia, which was referred to as Subir-ki by the Sumerians who also originated from this land. Numerous other ancient and medieval sources also refer to the Scythians, Huns, Avars and Magyars as identical people. Independently from the various political regimes which have ruled over Hungary and which have imposed the current official version of the origins and history of the Hungarians, modern scientific and scholarly research has confirmed the Sumerian-Scythian-Hun-Avar- Magyar ethnolinguistic relationship and continuity”.
The following map shows the antique Mesopotamia. The Sabirs came perhaps from the Zagros Mountains:
The standard work for the antique and medieval testimonies of the peoples mentioned is:
● Moravcsik, Gyula Byzantinoturcica. 2 vols.
(The second volume gives all the words and names that were ascribed by the antique and medieval scribes to the people mentioned.)
Budapest 1942 and 1958
5500 B.C. The Proto-Sumerians wander from Transylvania, where the age of the clay tablets of Tatárlaka has been testified by C14 analysis, towards Mesopotamia, where they start the Copper Age. Since Hungary is rich in copper, the Proto-Sumerian metallurgists may have brought their technical knowledge from their homeland into Mesopotamia. These Proto-Sumerians may be considered already as Hungarians, since their writing, that is identical with early Sumerian pictographic writing found in the cultures of Uruk-Warka IV- (ca. 3500-3200 v. Chr.) and Jemdet-Nasr (ca. 3100-2900 v. Chr.), corresponds to the Székely runes (Hung. rovásírás, literally “carve-writing”, from Hung. róni “to carve” and from here English rune, German Rune).
The standard works to these topics are:
● Badiny, Jós Ferenc
Igaz történelmünk vezérfonala Árpádig (Manual of Our True History Until Árpád) Budapest 2001
● Torma, Zsófia
Ethnographische Analogien (Ethnographic analogies) Jena 1894
● Vlassa, Nicolae
Chronology of the neolithic in Transylvania, in the light of the Tărtăria settlement’s stratigraphy.
In: Dacia 7, 1963, pp. 485-495
● Labat, René/Zakar, András
A sumér és akkád ékjelekről (About the Sumerian and Akkadian Cuneiform Signs) Garfield, NJ 1976
3000 B.C. “Sumerian colonies are established from the Atlantic Ocean through the Mediterranean and Danubian basins to India and Central Asia (Turan), and from the Caucasus to Northeast Africa. The vast belt of Eurasian grasslands stretching from the Carpathian mountains to the Altai range, bordered in the North by the Eurasian forest belt and in the South by the Caucasus and Iranian plateau, is gradually settled by Sumerians and Sumerian-related people from Mesopotamia, Transcaucasia and Iran. These Near Eastern settlers became the peoples which were later referred to as the Scythians, Huns, Avars and Magyars among others”. The Carpathian basin was reached by the Scythians in the 6th century B.C., the Huns in the 5th century A.D., the Avars in the 6th century A.D. and by the Magyars in the 9th century B.C.
“First appearance of nomadic Semitic tribes in Sumerian Mesopotamia. Semitic people begin to settle in increasing numbers in Mesopotamia. The Sumerian civilization exerts a dominant influence upon the development of later Semitic cultures”.
2455 B.C. “The Semitic Akkadians impose their hegemony upon the Sumerian city-states.
Mesopotamia is devastated by wars, the population is decimated, oppressed and enslaved by the Akkadians. Many Sumerians flee to their colonies”.
1900 B.C “The Semitic Babylonians impose their hegemony upon Mesopotamia”.
1115 B.C. “The Semitic Assyrians impose their hegemony over the Near East after centuries of warfare. The ensuing devastation, decimation, deportations and oppression alter the ethnic composition of the Near East, including Mesopotamia, as the Semitic element increases and the Sumerians decrease”.
612 B.C. “The Sumerian-related Chaldeans, Medes and Scythians annihilate the Assyrian empire.
The Scythians dominate the vast Eurasian grasslands from the Carpathian basin to the Altai during centuries”
539 B.C. “After overthrowing the Median Empire, the Persians conquer Mesopotamia and the rest of the Near East”.
256 B.C. “After the fall of Persia, the Parthian Empire rules over Mesopotamia, Armenia and Iran. The Turanian Parthians, custodians of the ancient Sumerian civilization, resist the Eastern expansion of the Roman Empire. In 226 A.D., the Persian Sassanids overthrow the Parthian Empire which experiences a revival between 272 and 326 A.D.
2nd c. A.D. “The Hun empire reaches its greatest extent from the Pacific to the Aral sea, from Siberia to the Partian Empire and China. The Huns face centuries of struggle against an increasingly offensive and encroaching Chinese imperialism and expanionism. Facing mounting pressures from China in the East, the Huns begin the expand into Europe. In the 4th century A.D., the Huns begin their Western military campaigns, In 375 A.D., the Huns defeat the Goths, setting in motion the great migration of Germanic tribes which also contributed to the collapse of the Roman Empire”.
5th c. “The Huns continue their crushing military campaigns against the Roman Empire. The Huns expel the Romans from the Carpathian basin (Pannonia and Dacia were occupied by the Romans after they had perpetrated genocidal warfare against the indigenous inhabitants of these Carpathian regions) and the Hun empire establishes its center of power in the Carpathian-Danubian region. Following Atilla’s death under suspicious circumstances in 453, the Hun’s Germanic allies turn against them and the bulk of the Hunnic tribes regroups to the East of the Carpathians, leaving a rear-guard tribe in the Eastern Carpathians. This Hunnic tribe still inhabits this region today and they are the Hungarian Székely people”.
562 “The Avar-Huns establish their empire in Central and Eastern Europe, with the Carpathian basin as the center of power. The Avars continue their centuries-long
9th c. “Following the settlements of Jewish refugees from the Near East in the Khazar empire, the ruling dynasty of the Khazars, another Turanian people, is converted to Judaism and seeks to impose this religion upon all its subjects. This precipitates a civil war which leads to the collapse of the Khazar empire. Several rebel Khazar tribes join the Hungarian federation which was led by the Magyar tribe. At that time the Hungarians were established in their own independent state of Dentumagyaria, between the Avar and Khazar empires”.
859-96 “After the collapse of the Khazar Empire, the Magyars and the other Hungarian tribes move West into the Etelköz region, where the Covenant of Blood takes place. This Covenant effectively creates the Magyar (Hungarian) nation which proceeds with the reconquest of the Carpathian basin and its surrounding regions. After expelling foreign encroaching powers from the Carpathian region and uniting with their previously settled Hun-Avar ethnic kin, the Magyars establish the Hungarian state in 896 as the successor state to the Hun and Avar empires”.
After around 3000 B.C., the Akkadians started to torment the Sumerians, which leaded them to emigration, but only a part of them became the later Scythians, Huns, Avars, Parthians and Magyars. As will be shown in this book, a relatively big part of the Sumerians wandered not to the North, but to the South, they spread out all over Tibet, India, China, Japan, etc. and as far as to the South Sea, where they left their traces in the languages and cultures of the Oceanian people. That part of the Sumerians, however, who took the way North via Caucasus into the Carpathian basin must have met on its way one ore more aboriginal peoples, who may have joined the later Hungarians before they separated and spread out as far as to the later Finland, Estonia and Lappland: They became what is mistakenly called today the “Finno-Ugrians”, and the small common stock of cognates (cf. chapters 3 and 4) may find its explication by borrowing from the Sumerian-Hungarians.
3. Is there a Finno-Ugric or Uralic language family?
Even in traditional Finno-Ugric or Uralic departments, the existence of a Finno-Ugric or Uralic language family has been doubted for a couple of years. But while more and more scholars are convinced, that the former Uralic language family is nothing but a Sprachbund, most Finno-Ugrists defend their position as representatives of a language family.
In this chapter, using the 100 words Swadesh-list and considering 10 Finno-Ugric and 2 Samoyed languages, it will be shown that neither the one nor the other assumption is justified. The politically motivated construction of a Finno-Ugric language family in the 18th century shows such a small basis of common words that would put back Proto-Finno-Ugric or Proto-Uralic long before 10’000 B.C. and therefore leads itself ad absurdum. On the other side, it will be shown that the theory of the Sumerian origin of Hungarian, commonly accepted before the invention of the Finno-Ugric and Uralic language families (cf. Érdy 1974), is acceptable also from a language-statistical point.
The 12 Uralic as well as the Sumerian and Akkadian Swadesh lists were compiled from dictionaries (cf. the bibliography, Chapter 19). Unfortunately, the Ostyak dictionary of Karjalainen (1948) and the Mordwin dictionary of Paasonen (1990-96) were not available to me, because the Library of Congress does not borrow reference works. From the living languages only the Finnic and Estonian lists could be controlled by native speakers in the spring of 2003 in the Institute of Uralistics of the University of Szombathely (Hungary). The Hungarian list was compiled by the present author according to his native speaker’s proficiency.
Since, as it is known, the Swadesh list was and is still discussed controversely, I would like to mention here only a few recent cases, in which the list could be applied successfully, i.e. where the calculations that follow from the list are matching with the chronological data of non-statistical linguistics: Elbert (1953) for Polynesian languages; Rabin (1975) for Semitic languages, Blažek for Sumerian (including Emesal), Akkadian, Elamitic, Kassitic, Hurrian, Urartian and Hattic; Forster, Tóth and Bandelt (1998) for 17 Retoromance/Ladinic dialects and recently Forster and Tóth (2003) for Celtic languages.
Hungarian Sumerian Akkadian
1 én ĝa-e „I” (Gostony, no. 811) ma, mae, me „I” (Zakar, p. 32)
2 te za, zae, zi, si „?” (Zakar, p. 32)
3 mi me „we” (Gostony, no. 814; Zakar, p. 32)
4 ez e4 „this, that” (Halloran/Hámori, A 2)
5 az aš „a” (Gostony, no. 835)
6 ki? a-ba11 „who?” (Gostony, no. 818)
7 mi? mi „who?” (Gostony, no. 816) minam, miima „what?” (Zakar, p. 33)
8 nem na-àm/nù-a,m „no, not” (Gostony, no. 58) na, nam „no, not” (Zakar, p. 33)
9 min-d-en-ki em-nam (Halloran/Hámori, p. 18) mimmiium „all” (Zakar, p. 33)
10 sok-an eš (Halloran/Hámori, p. 20)
11 egy ge, gi „one” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 37, 43) edu, ed „one” (Zakar, p. 34) ig „broken number” (Zakar, P. 34)
aš, g'eš „one, alone” (Halloran/Hámori, E 6) sag', as (Halloran/Hámori, p. 21)
12 kettő kad/kat4,5, katu „hand” (Gostony, no. 214; Zakar, p. 34)
13 nagy nu5(..g) (nu-)g/nun/na/nad „big”
(Bobula, Herencia, p. 46, 1 51; Gostony, no. 154, nadu „groß” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 46; Zakar, p. 34) 167-170; Zakar, p. 34)
14 hosszú uš „long” (Gostony, no. 113, 171) he-su-su-ud „long” (Zakar, p. 34) guz (Halloran/Hámori, p. 27)
15 kis/kicsi kiši/kišim „ant” (Gostony, no. 749) gudadu „small, little” (Zakar, p. 35)
16 nő na-na „to become”/nu „statue, little idol”
nunuz „Ei, shoot, young animal” (Gostony. nos. 387, 470, 771)
(Gostony, no. 457; Halloran/Hámori, p. 31)
17 fér-fi bár, bára „ruler” (Halloran/Hámori, E 17) èr/èri/erum „male servant” (Gostony, no. 493;
Halloran/Hámori, p. 32)
18 szem-ély si-am3-lu „eye-human” (Zakar, p. 35; Halloran/Hámori, p. 33)
19 hal ha + lu „fish + people” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 22) kua „fish” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 49)
ku6/ha „fish” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 45; Gostony, nos. 730, 731;
Zakar, p. 36)
20 madár musen/mutin (Bobula, Herencia, p. 23)
mušen, musen „bird” (Gostony, no. 740; Zakar, p. 36;
Halloran/Hámori, p. 35)
21 kutya kudda „biter” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 45) ku-ti-a „biter” (Zakar, p. 36)
22 tetű uh(u) (Blažek, p. 10)
23 fa pa „twig, tree” (Gostony, no. 792; Zakar, p. 36)
24 ma-g mu + ag „seed + to work” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 50)
múd „blood”/ma5 „to grind”/mu „grain” (Gostony, nos. 243, 400, 810);
Halloran/Hámori, p. 41; Zakar, p. 36)
25 levél lum, lam „(dry) leaves (?)” (Zakar, p. 36)
26 gyökér dúr(-a); suhuš, suh6; eren; i-rix-na (Blažek, p. 11)
27 kéreg kus „skin, leather” (Halloran/Hámori, K 29)
28 bőr bar „side; skin” (Gostony, no. 205bis; Zakar, p. 37;
Halloran und Hámori, p. 48)
29 hús kus „skin, body” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 23)
ùš „embryo”/uzu „meat”/kuš „skin” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 30;
Gostony, nos. 113, 203, 204; Halloran/Hámori, p. 49) kus (kuš?), guz „hand” (Zakar, p. 37)
30 vér bir „blood” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 45) bur „blood” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 49)
ùri (Halloran/Hámori, p. 50)
31 csont ĝìr-pad-du/da (Blažek, p. 7) sientum „bone” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 118)
esentu, esimtu „bone” (Zakar, p. 38)
32 zsír ì/ìa [šamnu] „oil, fat” (Gostony, no. 556; Zakar, p. 38) zal „fat” (Zakar, p. 38)
33 tojás nunuz (Blažek, p. 8)
34 szarv si + ru5 „horns-beater” (Gostony, no. 767; Zakar, p. 38;
Halloran/Hámori, p. 55)
35 far-ok kun (Blažek, p. 12)
36 toll dal „to fly” (Bobula, Origin, p. 33; Halloran/Hámori, p. 57)
37 haj ka + ú „hair” (Gostony, no. 220)
kulla „membrane, skin” (Halloran/Hámori, K 7)
38 fej be „sir” (Gostony, no. 514; Zakar, p. 39) pa „head” (Zakar, p. 39)
pa „point, peak” (Halloran/Hámori, F 19)
39 fül bur „ear” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 50) pi „ear” (Gostony, no. 226)
40 szem en „eye” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 53) seim „grain” (Zakar, p. 39)
še/ši + àm „cereals-grain” zimu „Auge” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 45; Zakar, p. 39) (Gostony, no. 69; Zakar, p. 39; Halloran/Hámori, p. 33)
41 orr ur „dog” (Gostony, no. 734) (k)i-ir „nose” (Zakar, p. 39)
42 száj šu + ai „mouth + opening” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 33) saptu „lip” (Zakar, p. 40) sù „lip”/sa4 „to name, to call” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 45;
Gostony, nos. 221, 311; Zakar, p. 40)
43 fog pa-d „to bite” (Halloran/Hámori, F 35) pag „to catch; to close” (Zakar, p. 40)
44 nyelv eme + il „tongue + to lift” (Gostony, no. 227; Halloran/Hámori, p. 69)
45 karom u; si (= horn) (Blažek, P. 8)
46 láb lah4 „to push, to take s.o. away” (Gostony, no. 254)
47 térd dùg, dug3 „knee” (Gostony, no. 233; Halloran/Hámori, p. 73)
48 kéz kad/kat4,5/giš/ki-ši-ib „hand” kappu „hand” (Zakar, p. 40)
(Bobula, Herencia, P. 45; Gostony, No. 214, 251, 252;
Zakar, p. 40; Halloran/Hámori, p. 75)
49 has ĥáš, haš „thigh” hasu „intestins, lungs” (Zakar, p. 41)
50 nyak gú „neck” (Gostony, no. 248; Zakar, p. 41;
Halloran/Hámori, p. 78)
kuk „joint” (Halloran/Hámori, p. 79)
51 mellek gaba, ga; ti-ti; zi; šà; ubur (Blažek, p. 7)
52 szív zi „gorge, throat”/šag „heart” (Gostony, nos. 52, 209) sa, sa-a „heart” (Zakar, p. 41)
53 máj bà „liver” (Gostony, no. 34; Halloran/Hámori, p. 82)
54 inni im-ma „thirst” (Gostony, no. 319) immeli „to drink” (Zakar, p. 42) na8, nañ (Halloran/Hámori, p. 83)
55 enni eš „eats” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 45) esa „nourishment” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 33) su5,6 (Halloran/Hámori, p. 84)
és's'a „full up, satisfied” (Halloran/Hámori, E 20)
56 harapni kur5 (Halloran/Hámori, p. 85)
57 látni lá (Halloran/Hámori, p. 86)
58 hallani aka (Halloran/Hámori, p. 89)
59 tudni tu6-dug4-ga [tudukku] „invocation” (Gostony, no. 3) idu-u „to know, to recognise” (Zakar, p. 42)
60 aludni usàras „sleeps” (Bobula, Herencia, pp. 53, 54) a-a-lum „to sleep” (Gostony, no. 472) u, udi, usa „sleep; to sleap” (Zakar, p. 43)
61 halni lúalal [alallu] „bad demon”/ halaku „to disappear” (Zakar, p. 43) ĥul „fatal” (Gostony, nos. 31, 98)
hal „to go down” (Zakar, p. 43; Halloran/Hámori, p. 94)
63 úszni uzmušen [uzu] „goose” (Gostony, no. 773) a-usum „raft” (Zakar, p. 43)
64 repülni lil „wind, air”, lal „to be in the air” (Zakar, p. 43) ri „to throw” (Halloran/Hámori, R 8)
65 menni mud „beeilt sich” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 51) ki-min „to go” (Zakar, p. 44) en „to go”, men/me „to be; to move”
me-en/ma-an „there is” (Zakar, p. 44)
66 jönni gin „to go” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 51; Gostony, no. 255;
cf. dial. gyönni!, Zakar, p. 44) du „goes” (Zakar, p. 44)
67 fek-üd-ni ukú „to make flat, to fall down” (Gostony, no. 394)
68 ülni úr [utlu]/urx „lap” (Gostony, nos. 245, 471)
69 állni gal, mal „to be, to exist”, alad „bull”, ga-al
„to be, to exist”, gal2 „to be” (Zakar, p. 45)
70 adni sum// zeĝ; sì; rig7; mu, nì-ba, dùg(-ga), udu „taxes” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 118) du10//zeb; ku7-ku7; šà-ga (Blažek, p. 9) id-din, hadu, nadanu „to give” (Zakar, p. 45)
71 mondani mu „to say” (Gostony, no. 301)
72 nap nap „winter sun; gods” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 43; nap „god” (Zakar, p. 45) Gostony, no. 48)
nab „heaven” (Zakar, P. 45)p
73 hold ud „light, moon” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 30, 43; Zakar, p. 46) hud „to shine; light” (Bobula, Herencia, pp. 54, 2 28) húl + ud „enjoyment + light” (Gostony, no. 88) ud4,8 „moon”; had „to shine” (Halloran/Hámori, p. 106)
74 csillag zalag, zallag „star”; zall „to be bright”
(Bobula, Herencia, p. 43; Gostony, no. 91; Zakar, p. 46;
Halloran/Hámori, p. 107)
75 víz bi + eš „drop + water” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 33) íd „river”/biz/bis „drop” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 43;
Gostony, nos. 54, 657; Zakar, p. 46; Halloran/Hámori, p. 108)
76 eső e „slope” (Gostony, no. 188) siutu „sunset”, usan „evening” (Zakar, p. 47)
77 kő ku „to found” (Gostony, no. 353)
ka „basalt” (Zakar, p. 47; Halloran/Hámori, p. 111)
78 homok ukum „cloud of dust” (Gostony, nos. 61, 198;
Halloran/Hámori, p. 112; cf. hamu!)
78a pórond epirri „dust” (Zakar, p. 47) epiru „dust” (Zakar, p. 47)
79 föl-d u2 + u7 + du „acre” (Zakar, p. 48) par-im „dry land” (Halloran/Hámori, F 36)
80 felhő ubilla „soot” (Halloran/Hámori, p. 114)
81 füst i-izi (Blažek, P. 12)
82 tűz te „flame” (Bobula, Herencia, pp. 43, 52) de-izi „fire”, izi „id.” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 43;
Bobula, Origin, p. 33; Halloran/Hámori, p. 116 tu6 „invocation” (Gostony, no. 453)
izi, deizi „fire”, tu-izi „magic, stake, fire” (Zakar, p. 48)
83 hamu ukum „dust” (Gostony, nos. 61, 198; Halloran/Hámori, hamatu „to burn”, hamu „to destroy” (Zakar, p. 48) p. 118; cf. homok)
kúm „hot” (Halloran/Hámori, K 42)
84 égni ug „burning heat” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 43) é „house, temple”/ág „to measure”/e8 „to be dried out” (Gostony, nos. 8, 305, 330)
šeng6 „to be hot, to cook, to heat” (Halloran/Hámori, E 3)
85 út ud („?”)(Bobula, Rokonság, P. , 64) usu „way” (Zakar, p. 49)
íd „river” (Gostony, no. 54) u „to drive”, kut „road” (Zakar, p. 49)
86 hegy he + ğe „mass + abundance” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 43) eddu „pointed” (Zakar, p. 49) he-gal „abundance” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 51)
gug, gur, kur „to roll” (Zakar, p. 49)
87 piros rusu, urudu (Halloran/Hámori, p. 122) pîlû „dark read” (Gostony, no. 177; Zakar, p. 50)
87a vörös si4 „dark read” (Gostony, no. 177) russu „red-shining clothes”, urudu „copper;
red”, rus „red” (Zakar, p. 50)
Halloran/Hámori, p. 124)
89 sárga sig „yellow” (Bobula, Kétezer, p. 70) ar-ka „yellow”, arku „yellowish” (Zakar, p. 50) sig7, se12 „green” (Gostony, no. 176; Zakar, p. 50;
Halloran/Hámori, p. 124)
90 fehér bar, paar „white” (Bobula, Herencia, pp. 46, 48) babbar, bar6 „white” (Gostony, no. 155; Zakar, p. 50;
Halloran/Hámori, p. 125)
91 fekete bu „dark” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 46) bikîtu „eclipse of the sun” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 46) gig „schwarz, dunkel” (Halloran/Hámori, P. 126)
92 éj(szaka) gíg, ge6 „dark; night” (Gostony, no. 49) gi-e „night” (Zakar, p. 51)
93 forró bar „to burn” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 54)
94 hideg hal-ba „coldness, frost” (Zakar, p. 51; Halloran/Hámori, p. 130) si-e-di „coldness” (Zakar, p. 51)
95 tele/teli dil „perfect, full” (Bobula, Origin, p. 33)
til „to be old, to be at the end” (Bobula, Kétezer, p. 79) tíl-la „to live; life” (Gostony, no. 71)
de „full”; til „complete” (Zakar, p. 52; Halloran/Hámori, p. 131)
96 új ù „to spread out; to sleep” (Gostony, no. 417)
97 jó la „excellence” (Bobula, Herencia, p. 46) i(-a) “the revered, praised thing” (Gostony, no. 13)
98 kerek kar + ag „to turn around” (Bobula, Kétezer, p. 54) erru “ring, circlet” (Zakar, p. 52) kar „to avoid”, gilil, kililu „ring, circlet
garland” (Zakar, p. 52)
kar, gar, gur (Halloran/Hámori, p. 134)
99 szár-az sig, sahar „dry, dried out” (Zakar, p. 53; su-ur „to dry out”, siru „steppe” (Zakar, p. 53) Halloran/Hámori, p. 135)
100 név na „to name” (Zakar, p. 53) nibu „name” (Zakar, p. 53)
nam, na (Halloran/Hámori, p. 137
Hung. Vog. Osty. Syry. Voty. Cher. Mordw. Finn. Eston. Lapp. Ngan. Selk.
1 éna äma mäa mea mona mińa mona minäa minaa mōna myńa mana
2 tea naŋb naŋb tea tona tińa tona sinäa sinaa dōna tanaa tana
3 mia mana moŋa mijea mia mäa mińa mea mea mīa myńa mea
4 eza ań-tib tamc etaa tad tye et'ea tämäf seeg tatah tami namij
5 aza ań-tab tomc esijad soe tuf štog tuoh tooh to-h tandai tinaj
6 ki?a χåb χojb kina kina küa k'ia kena kesa gīa ku-a kutia
7 mi? a mära moja muja maa mōa meźea mikäa misa mīa ma-a qajb
8 nema äb nema nema evylc nĕd ab lie mittef ibg ni-a aššah
9 mindenkia år-khanb azàtc bided vańe ćĕlaf veseg kaikkih köikh tiuna-i bonsaj muntikk
10 sokana sewa ārb unac unoc šukĕd sjar'jae montaf paljug ätna-h ńuka-i koččij
11 egya akwb ijc et'id ogb ikb vejkeb yksib üksb ok'tâe ńojf ukkirg
12 kettőa kita käta kika kika koka kavtoa kaksia kaksa guok'tea sitya šittia
13 nagya jänib ūnc giriśd badžime kuguf nokšg suurih suurh stuĕra-i ńarkaj kepil'k
14 hosszúa khåšäa χuwb kuźa kuźa kužua kuvakac pitkäd pikkd kuoke-e najba-f čumpil'g
